President Trump supports a meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un

America and especially a virile left media are having trouble understanding the last few weeks of President Trump and U.S. foreign relations. Earlier in May, the President answered a reporter’s question who asked if he would meet the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. The President’s comment went viral after he replied, in part, “I would be honored to meet with him.” His poor choice of words quickly bubbled to the top of media headlines as they condemned the president for his apparent praise of the barbaric despot and an enemy of the U.S.

President Trump meets with Russian Foreign Minster Igor Ivanov in the White House to exchange critical information on ISIS and threats to aviation

And adding more fuel to the foreign relations fire, the President met last week with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador where they exchanged supposed sensitive security information. The Russian meeting harkened quick criticism, but this time from both the left and right. Many were outraged that the president would release such information to a declared adversary?

However, what was missed was the significance of each exchange.

President Trump could be the first U.S. president to meet with a North Korean leader, unprecedented. And at a time when North Korean hostilities and nuclear provocation are at its height. Additionally, Trump’s desire for a relationship with Russia is on the heels of its Crimean annexation, involvement with another despot Bashar Assad of Syria and the fact that Russian foreign relations are degenerating back to Cold War behavior.

Each situation does beg the question of why. Why would President Trump meet a declared or better put, labeled enemy and adversary. And as every media pundit has pontificated, how can this be good for America?

It appears that the president is dangerously mishandling our foreign relations? Or is he?

On April 13th, the U.S. dropped one of the largest weapons it possesses on an Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) command site in Afghanistan. What made it such a newsworthy piece was not the fact that the U.S. dropped a bomb, but the fact that this bomb is the mother of all bombs — the largest (non-nuclear) weapon in the U.S. inventory. And it was the first time in the bombs 14-year history to be released in combat.

The world was captivated by it.

Within hours of the Pentagon releasing information on the strike, people flooded social media with interest and responses. For days, it was the rage in the news with millions of tweets on Twitter and hits on YouTube. And for the next several weeks’ military analysts, news outlets and the public debated its use and effect. Everything from its popularity to questioning its purpose to damaging the environment.

Was there more to it than just another combat operation in Afghanistan…the answer is yes.

After this week’s chemical attacks in Syria, I decided to blog on our current U.S. position as it might compare to President Obama’s “red line” decision in 2012. During my research, I came across Derek Chollet’s 2016 article, “Obama’s Red Line, Revisited.” At that time, Mr. Chollet was the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs under President Obama. His article resonates today and possesses merit on President Obama’s handling of Syria’s chemical attacks in 2013.

But for reasons that are markedly different than what the Assistant Secretary surmised.

The iconic excerpt from the introduction to the 1960s cult TV show “Star Trek,” said so much to so many. The U.S. was on the verge of landing a person on the moon beating out our arch enemies, the Soviet Union. And more importantly, it was our first terrestrial adventure outside Earth. We were embarking on a path that would physically separate our species from all others…stepping us into the vastness of space. How exciting!!

However,

as much as this adventure seems provocative and inevitable, not everyone shares this excitement. Per Debate.org, as many as 55% of those surveyed said “no” when asked, “Is Space Exploration good?” Per Debatewise.org, 51% said no to space exploration. Their disapproval ranged from “solving earthly problems” to “little benefit” to “excessive cost.” In general, a waste of time and money.

And it’s not as if the naysayers don’t have a point.

More than one billion people live in extreme poverty. 750 million do not have access to clean water. Climate change appears to be a real problem. Preventable diseasestake 2 million children a year. And one-fifth of all humans live without electricity. In addition, the U.S. and other nations are trillions of dollars in debt, and the number of deadly conflicts increased substantially over the last 50 years. Not to mention our ongoing problem with global terrorism.

With all these challenges it begs the question, why do something as frivolous as exploring space?

Featured Posts

This is a redo of a previous blog I wrote about the security issues inside Afghanistan. I initially used personal accounts to paint a picture of the problems I witnessed during my military tour in 2005. However, with President Trump’s most recent speech laying out a potential shift in American Afghan policy, I felt compelled to […]